Skip directly to: Main page content
Developed by Obada Kadri

AGI Lab Home Attitudes and Group Identity Lab

UCD: Attitudes and Group Identity Lab » Framing Effects

Framing Effects

When are people are more or less likely to get stuck in their current experience? One important factor seems to be how information in the current environment is framed. We know, intuitively, that there are different ways of thinking about things: The same glass can be seen as half full or half empty. Meanwhile, there is quite a bit of research in the behavioral sciences showing that depending on how you describe (or "frame") the glass, people will feel differently about it: They like it when it's described as half full, and dislike it when it's described as half empty. But what happens when the description changes? Can people switch back and forth from one conceptualization to another, or do they get stuck in one way of thinking about it?

Integrating the literatures on functional fixedness, framing, and negativity biases, we hypothesized that loss frames might be fundamentally “stickier” than gain frames, so that it is more difficult for people to shift from conceptualizing an issue in terms of losses to reconceptualizing it in terms of gains (compared to shifting from gains to losses). To test this idea, we borrowed classic paradigms in framing research (such as Tversky and Kahneman’s “Asian flu” scenario) and added a twist: After participants saw information framed in terms of either losses (e.g., lives lost) or gains (e.g., lives saved), they saw the same information reframed in the opposite way. Consistent with the notion that loss frames are conceptually stickier than gain frames, loss-to-gain reframing had a muted impact on participants’ risk preferences and evaluations, compared to gain-to-loss reframing. In other experiments, participants took longer to solve a simple math problem that required reconceptualizing losses as gains, compared to when the same math problem involved mentally converting from gains to losses. Taken together, the results of our studies expand the field’s current understanding of framing effects to suggest that frames can have lingering influences outside of the context in which they are first encountered, and that it is more difficult to convert mentally from loss-based conceptualizations to gain-based conceptualizations than vice versa. 

Selected Publications

Ledgerwood, A., & Boydstun, A. E. (in press). Sticky prospects: Loss frames are cognitively stickier than gain frames. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.